whitesoxfan101 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 08:57 PM) Actually, I thought it was a good speech. Better than Obama's speech for the first time. Barrack's delivery and constant 'change' stuff is getting a bit stale. You saw tonight why Obama uses that stuff so much tonight, when he did talk on the issues. He's a lefter than left liberal, and if he makes the mistake he did tonight of going to the issues much more often, he will get his rear end kicked by McCain among independents, which would make this a very close election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 08:44 PM) In his speech tonight, John McCain referenced an "eloquent but empty call for change" several times. Minor problem: Obama has done a lot in the last 3 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 11:24 PM) ...he will get his rear end kicked by McCain among independents, which would make this a very close election. Judging by the turnout in Republican primaries and caucuses to date I don't think people will be coming out in droves to support an uninspiring waffler like McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 11:53 AM) Judging by the turnout in Republican primaries and caucuses to date I don't think people will be coming out in droves to support an uninspiring waffler like McCain. There isn't a need to "go out and support" McCain. Since New Hampshire, he's been the defacto nominee. If Clinton gets the nomination, you bet your ass people will vote for McCain in droves. I know, I know... Obama has it wrapped up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 08:46 AM) Minor problem: Obama has done a lot in the last 3 years... Why is this something an AMERICAN Senator should be worrying about? Obama's Global Poverty Act of 2007, passed out of committee just a few days ago WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September. Now I don't mean why is it wrong for the US to help people, I mean why is an American Senator trying to pass a LAW that makes the US responsible for reducing WORLD poverty by half? And fyi, co-sponsoring a bill don't mean s***. I can't wait to see the compilation of his Illinois record. How good can it be if the only thing that got him elected to the senate in the first place was Jeri Ryan not wanting to go to sex clubs? Speaking of that, did they ever find out who released the 'sealed' records? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 11:53 AM) Judging by the turnout in Republican primaries and caucuses to date I don't think people will be coming out in droves to support an uninspiring waffler like McCain. You are right, I'll be voting for Obama in the Texas primary. No need to vote for McCain, it is a forgone conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 12:38 PM) Why is this something an AMERICAN Senator should be worrying about? Obama's Global Poverty Act of 2007, passed out of committee just a few days ago WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September. Now I don't mean why is it wrong for the US to help people, I mean why is an American Senator trying to pass a LAW that makes the US responsible for reducing WORLD poverty by half? And fyi, co-sponsoring a bill don't mean s***. I can't wait to see the compilation of his Illinois record. How good can it be if the only thing that got him elected to the senate in the first place was Jeri Ryan not wanting to go to sex clubs? Speaking of that, did they ever find out who released the 'sealed' records? Because we (the US government) have already agreed to that .7% and he's trying to enforce the agreement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 not trying to start anything, and but I did find this interesting, branching from what balta posted, because it seemed to add an additional element: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ked_on_taxp.php "As The Washington Post reported on Saturday, John McCain's campaign struck a canny deal with a bank in December. If his campaign tanked, public funds would be there to bail him out. But if he emerged as the nominee, there'd be no need for public financing, since the contributions would come flowing. It's an arrangement that no one has ever tried before. And it appears that McCain, who has built his reputation on campaign finance reform, was gaming the system. Or as a campaign finance expert who preferred to remain anonymous told me, referring to the prominent role that lobbyists have as advisers to his campaign, "This places McCain’s grandstanding on public financing in a new light. True reformers believe public financing is a way to replace the lobbyists’ influence, not a slush fund that the lobbyists use to pay off campaign debts." Here's the back story. As of December, McCain was still enrolled in the public financing system, but had yet to actually receive any public matching funds. The Federal Election Commission had certified that the campaign would be receiving $5.8 million in public funds. But they wouldn't get that money for a couple more months. In need of even more cash beyond the $3 million loan he'd already secured from a Maryland bank (he'd taken out a life insurance policy as collateral), the McCain campaign was stuck in a bind. They needed more money, but the bank needed collateral. The promise of those public matching funds (to the tune of more than $5 million) was the only collateral the campaign could offer. But there was a problem with that. Using that promised money as collateral would have bound McCain to the public financing system, according to FEC rules. And the McCain camp wanted to avoid that, because the system limits campaigns to spending $54 million in the primary (through August). That would mean McCain would get seriously outspent by the Democratic nominee through the summer. (McCain has separately pledged to enroll in the system for the general election; that would give him $85 million in taxpayer funds for use after the party convention through Election Day but bar other contributions.) So here's what the McCain campaign did. They struck a deal with the bank that simultaneously allowed his campaign to secure public funds if necessary, but did not compel his campaign to stay in the public system if fundraising went well (i.e. if he won the nomination). As McCain's lawyer told the Post, "We very carefully did not do that." He was not promising to remain in the system -- he was promising to drop out of the system, and then opt back in if things went poorly. In that event, the $5.8 million would still be waiting for him. And he'd just hang around to collect it, even if he'd gotten drubbed in New Hampshire and the following states. You can see the agreement here. The relevant paragraph is on page two. Sizing it up, Mark Schmitt writes at Tapped: What we know is that McCain found a way to use the public funds as an insurance policy: If he did poorly, he would use public funds to pay off his loans. If he did well, he would have the advantage of unlimited spending. There's a reason no one's ever done anything like this. It makes a travesty of the choice inherent in voluntary public financing, between public funds and unlimited spending. " I quoted talkingpointsmemo because they explained it the best, but obviously some colorful language. They did win a Pulitzer though, for their excellent reporting on the attorney scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 He didn't break any of the regulations, but somehow this is a scandal? Seriously, you guys are really stretching on this issue. If thats all the major "scandal" with McCain, he is in good shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 10:25 PM) He didn't break any of the regulations, but somehow this is a scandal? Seriously, you guys are really stretching on this issue. If thats all the major "scandal" with McCain, he is in good shape. Well the thing is it's a hell of a strategy. Remember, this was made back in december, so if he dropped out of the race, he would've been paying off the debts with public funding. Obviously it paid off, but I mean this is the guy that created the campaign finance reform, if anything this just kind of proves it's not a reality. They are just going to circumvent it. Has any change really happened? the races have become more expensive at just as high a rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 04:31 PM) Well the thing is it's a hell of a strategy. Remember, this was made back in december, so if he dropped out of the race, he would've been paying off the debts with public funding. Obviously it paid off, but I mean this is the guy that created the campaign finance reform, if anything this just kind of proves it's not a reality. They are just going to circumvent it. Has any change really happened? the races have become more expensive at just as high a rate. That campaign finance reform deal does suck. The worst part, IMO, is it violates free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Just saw a guy from the Obama campaign giving an interview. He was asked to give one Obama accomplishment, the guy just blabbed about change or something stupid... interviewer said "No, give me a specific accomplishment". Guy from Obama campaign was like "we can't really give anything specific". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 05:03 PM) Just saw a guy from the Obama campaign giving an interview. He was asked to give one Obama accomplishment, the guy just blabbed about change or something stupid... interviewer said "No, give me a specific accomplishment". Guy from Obama campaign was like "we can't really give anything specific". He co-sponsored over 1000 bills! Don't belittle his accomplishments! Change! Change is a-coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 05:03 PM) Just saw a guy from the Obama campaign giving an interview. He was asked to give one Obama accomplishment, the guy just blabbed about change or something stupid... interviewer said "No, give me a specific accomplishment". Guy from Obama campaign was like "we can't really give anything specific". And that about sums it up, doesn't it? Hillary has about the same resume but is 35 years older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Lemon Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Weeks after being sworn in '05, Obama was lobbying to ameliorate life for Illinois Vets, who at the time ranked 50th out 52 in benefits. For example, a veteran in Puerto Rico would receive better treatment than one in Illinois. Improvements and federal attention materialized only a few months later as the VA Sec. came to Ill. and ordered more specialists there. It seems easier to bash the guy for not wearing a flag lapel-which does absolutely nothing to improve the life of a veteran-than actually giving out a modicum of credit for getting some bureaucrats to do their job. Here's a few archives if you want to pay and read about it. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archiv...ackval=GooglePM http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archiv...ackval=GooglePM Who cares about that? Walter Reed thingy didn't get reported on until only last year. It only matters then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 05:58 PM) Who cares about that? Walter Reed thingy didn't get reported on until only last year. It only matters then. A squad of disability specialists has been ordered to the Chicago VA office to settle the disputed claims of Illinois veterans whose disability pay ranks worst in the nation. That extraordinary action by Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson follows demands from vets and U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, both Illinois Democrats, in response to Chicago Sun-Times reports that revealed Illinois' disabled veterans have been shortchanged for... Sounds good to me. So how did this end? Did he follow through? have things greatly improved because of Obama? And it seems like he was responding to a Sun-Times article, not the other way around. If he was just "demanding action be taken", then claiming this is a major accomplishment is like someone who was governor seeing an article in the newspaper that there was a murderer on the loose and "demand they be captured" then say it is a major accomplishment to recognize criminals should be arrested. Edited February 21, 2008 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Lemon Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Except it is not at all like that analogy. He wasn't just demanding things get better, he was able to get Nicholson, then VA Sec. to Illinois to face people in Illinois who wanted answers to problems that had been building way the hell before Obama was even a candidate for U.S. Senate. As a result of these meetings, conditions for Ill. Vets improved dramatically, specifically in the area of PTSD screening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 06:24 PM) Except it is not at all like that analogy. He wasn't just demanding things get better, he was able to get Nicholson, then VA Sec. to Illinois to face people in Illinois who wanted answers to problems that had been building way the hell before Obama was even a candidate for U.S. Senate. As a result of these meetings, conditions for Ill. Vets improved dramatically, specifically in the area of PTSD screening. I'm glad the situation has improved and Obama did the right thing. If reading an article in the paper, then sending a guy out to solve problems that obviously needed attention is one of his big accomplishments, his campaign should be bragging about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) UH OH! Did McCain and Lobbyist have a Romantic Relationship? A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity. When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s clients, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement. Edited February 21, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 06:51 PM) UH OH! Did McCain and Lobbyist have a Romantic Relationship? meh, just another NY times hatchet job. Who cares. Looks as if Jayson Blair working as a news content consultant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 05:08 PM) meh, just another NY times hatchet job. Who cares. Looks as if Jayson Blair working as a news content consultant. And man, this isn't even a well done hatchet job. This one's pretty shoddy all around. It's the kind of stuff that really pisses me off when the WaPo throws it at Democrats. Like, in the first paragraph, they flash the word "Sex!!!" really loudly by mentioning this 40 year old female lobbyist, and then go, "now that I've got your attention, here's a rambling essay on McCain's variable relationships with lobbyists and whether or not it conflicts with his campaign finance reform schtick." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I applaud any candidate that will follow the rules and push their limits. I'd like a President that did the same thing. As far as listing accomplishments, name Bush's before he took office? Reagan? Clinton? Sponsored such and such bill? Sponsoring any bill worth a damn is a party favor handed out based on longevity, fund raising and a bunch more less than honorable reasons. Then it gets trotted out at the right time and people who don't follow closely think some stuff means more than it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 05:17 PM) And man, this isn't even a well done hatchet job. This one's pretty shoddy all around. It's the kind of stuff that really pisses me off when the WaPo throws it at Democrats. Like, in the first paragraph, they flash the word "Sex!!!" really loudly by mentioning this 40 year old female lobbyist, and then go, "now that I've got your attention, here's a rambling essay on McCain's variable relationships with lobbyists and whether or not it conflicts with his campaign finance reform schtick." The more I read this article, the more I have to think that the editors at the NYT just wouldn't have approved this article at all if they didn't honestly believe there was an actual "relationship" between McCain and that lobbyist. There must be more than they're writing here. Thehy're putting themselves in Drudge's attempted smear on Kerry territory otherwise, and they'd have to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Flashback to Drudge rumor-mongering on this story 2 months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) Statement from McCain camp. U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today issued the following statement by Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker: "It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election. "Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career." Is it worth noting that there is no explicit denial that he had an affair with the woman in that statement? Edited February 21, 2008 by Balta1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts